Neutrons - "Obvious lack of Knowledge"

“Obvious lack of knowledge”, that is the criticism aimed by four retired nuclear physicists who have read my book. The basis for this claim has been (in all four cases) the characterization of a neutron as being “made up of a proton and an electron”.

Is a neutron “made up of a proton and an electron”?

Neutrons are large subatomic particles. Subatomic particles can be “fundamental” or “elementary” as we once thought atoms were or “composite”, being made up of other subatomic particles.

Neutrons are composite subatomic particles, made up of elementary particles, in this case quarks and gluons. Quarks are further characterized by “flavor” – up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top. (I am not making this up!)

Both neutrons and protons have three quarks. This number cannot change. The neutron is made up of two down quarks and one up quark and is about 0.2% more massive than a proton. Neutrons decay with an average half life of 10.3 minutes. “Decay” in neutron terms involves one of the down quarks converting to an up quark; two up quarks and one down quark makes a proton. The difference in mass is given off as an electron plus an electron antineutrino.

Neutrinos and antineutrinos were completely omitted from From Hiroshima to Fukushima to You because they have no electrical charge and apparently don’t affect living tissue. They do account for the tiny bit of energy left over when the proton and electron are formed at the decay of a neutron.

So in summary: In relatively quick succession, the average lifetime of a neutron being 10.3 minutes, the down quark becomes an up quark and the neutron becomes a proton, now making up the greater part of the original mass. With the formation of a proton, the electron plus energy is released.

Is a neutron “made up of a proton and an electron”? Technically no but that’s what we get when neutrons decay. Shucks, I should have said "effectively made up of a proton and an electron".

There is also a tendency among the retired physicists to get their shirts in knots over calling neutrons “glue that holds a nucleus together”.

(One physicist whose real issue is about nuclear power used this to harass a professor using my book as text to indicate that I know nothing about which I speak.)

Let me quote Dr. Ken Mellendorf from Illinois Central College:  “Neutrons hold the nucleus together.”  His explanation is slightly different than mine.

Protons are positively charge and normally would repel one another. At the close range of a nucleus, something called the “Strong Force” takes over – it is more powerful than the existing electrical repulsion. However, except at “absolute zero”, protons still have a tendency to be a bit uneasy and move around. They need extra holding force.

Neutrons have no electrical charge and are similarly affected by the Strong Force so they are attracted to both the protons and other neutrons. As nuclei become larger for larger atoms, more and more neutrons are required to create the force to hold the collection of protons and neutrons together.

Sounds like “glue” to me!

Being Responsible: The Sign at the End of My Lane

A sign at the end of my lane reads “No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere”. Since the sign was on my deck for the summer, I know what questions people ask. 

FYI background information: Nuclear waste is made up of radioactive elements. Radioactive elements decay and as they “decay” they give off both radioactive particles and energy as they become a different element. For example: radium changes into radon gas when it decays. The release of the particles (or energy) can affect cells. Special radioactive elements are used in controlled circumstances to treat cancer because it kills cells that are rapidly dividing preferentially to normal cells. However, it also kills normal cells and can cause cancer, inheritable defects and developmental abnormalities.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) proposes a Deep Geological Repository (DGR) which they claim to have the ability to monitor for a century - at which time they abandon it, so, in fact, NWMO is proposing a Deep Underground Dump (DUD). 

The questions: 

First: “Why not put the waste back in the ground where it came from?” Some time ago, that would have been my question too.

Bad idea.

First: it is not the same kind of thing. The waste is hundreds of times more radioactive than the ore that was taken out of Saskatchewan. It contains some 200 or more brand new radioactive elements, some more lethal than others. While computer models predict how each element will decay (and each decay chain is known), no one really knows how the combinations will chemically or physically inter-react as they change through time. At the one existing North American underground dump, the WIPP facility in Carlsbad, intended to last “thousands of years”, no one still knows why radioactivity was released because they cannot get close enough to examine it.

Second: Packaging the stuff doesn’t work. Radiation changes things over time – the iron and/or copper that makes up the containers is constantly barraged by nuclear particles that change the elements. If an iron atom is changed into an atom of a gas, salt or even different kind of metal, the container gradually “rots”. In fact, this is reason nuclear power plants “wear out” and need “refurbishment”. 

Third: The Cost. Federal government has already spent more than $700 million on the six year long Seaborn Panel that recommended against a Deep Geological Repository. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has spent millions and plans to spend millions more. And then there is the cost of building the dump site, creating the containers and shipping them across Canada – there exists already enough waste that it will take trucks driving continually a couple of hours apart for a couple of decades to get the current waste to Saskatchewan – is practically unfathomable. Virtually all of these eventually billions of dollars will come out of the public purse. Creighton is still under consideration for a DUD.

Second question: "What do you propose? Saskatchewan may as well make money from the waste?"

The Candian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and the US Environmental Protection Agency propose that the stuff remain in the containers in which it is currently stored where it can be monitored – after the six to ten years that it spends under water until it is “cool” enough to be stored. The containers regularly assessed and breaches repaired early. The waste would be readily accessible if a technology were developed that sustainably recycled them.

The EPA called it “Rolling Stewardship”. The beauty of the plan would be that when the nuclear power plants are decommissioned, they can virtually be decommissioned on the spot! There would be jobs into the future as far as humans exist. 

We’ve created the waste, for our children and our children's children, we need to manage it responsibly. 

Typos, Errors and Clarifications (Updated Version)

We opened ourselves to receiving comments on the book, From Hiroshima to Fukushima to You, and did we ever receive them! From physicists, mechanical and nuclear engineers to doctors and lay people, most of the letters have been complementary. Unfortunately, a few errors or misunderstandings have occurred.

Typos: 

Page 26: Bismuth-208 should be bismuth-209.

Page 31: Astatine-219 should be astatine-218. Its half-life is actually about

                        1.5 seconds.

 Page 32: Figure 2.4 the first mentioned bismuth-210 should be

bismuth-214.

Page 86 & 90:  Plutonium-249 should be Plutonium 239.

Page 89: “Moderate” should be used instead of “modulate” and a

            “modulator” should be a “moderator”.

Page 177: Heavy water is deuterium oxide, not deuterium dioxide.

Downright Errors:

Page 30: The text erroneously says that neutrons don’t occur naturally – of course they do. Uranium-235 releases neutrons when it fissions.

Page 85: Figure 6.2 shows one U-235 fission producing three U-235 fissions and then possibly six U-235 fissions. This would not be a “controlled nuclear reaction”. Each generation should have the same number of fissions.

There are a number of areas where our readers and we differ on some of our interpretations of “how things work”.  We have enjoyed the discussions and look forward to more feedback.

Clarifications:

Page 2 and page 31:  We refer to “cosmic rays” and “gamma rays”. There is reason to be confused about the exact nature of the ionizing radiation reaching the surface of the earth from outside the atmosphere; see the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission backgrounder at http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/natural-background-radiation.cfm 

Page 25: The damage to organic material when a neutron decays is done by the resulting proton and electron but technically, a neutron is not “made up of a proton and an electron”.

Both neutrons and protons are composed of quarks – a neutron is composed of two “down quarks” and one “up quark”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nky2XQGQ3k) The decay of 10.3 minutes actually involves the transformation of one of the “down quarks” into an “up quark” turning the bulk of the neutron into a proton. The rest of the decay involves the emission of an electron and an antineutrino. (See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html)  We chose not to introduce new subatomic particles to the reader; a neutron’s damage results from its ability to penetrate and from the resulting proton and the electron. 

Page 29: Several readers have pointed out to us that in Figure 2.3 “If the plastic or wood is thin enough, it won’t stop beta particles.” Correct. In fact, beta particles have a wide range of energies (however specific for specific radioisotopes) and the thickness required to stop them varies with their individual energies. Wood could be as thin as a centimeter and as thick as 31 cm (1 foot) or more!

Page 31: Astatine was not shown in the decay chain but mentioned in the text: It was omitted from figure 2.4 for simplicity. Polonium-218 decays to lead-214 and also to astatine-218. Astatine-218 decays two different ways: by alpha emission to bismuth-214 and by beta emission to radon-218 (which then decays to polonium-214 by alpha emission).

We continue to welcome your input.

Drum Beats and Nuclear Weapons

Ukrainian political history is extremely complicated but it is now simplified by Western media. We are being told who is in the wrong as if the issues are black and white, who are the aggressors, who shot down MH-17, and how we need to arm the Eastern bloc European countries. And the winner is!.....the arms merchants.

Furthermore, some of the rhetoric has made no sense. John Kerry, US Vice-President, demands that “Russian disarm the separatists”. How, exactly, was Russia going to take the weapons away from the dissidents in another country?

The United States has admitted that it put millions of dollars into the protests that eventually brought down the previous Ukrainian president (remember, the one who was going to align with the Russians instead of the EU). A Western-friendly multi-million dollar chocolatier becomes president after an election that barely passes for legal.

Unanswered questions: why was the US in there in the first place? Why are they supporting a despot (“West-friendly” doesn’t mean “democratic”)? Why is it ok for the West to supply arms to the one side if it is wrong for Russia to supply the other (whether they are or not)?

The Eastern often-Russian speaking Ukrainians do not want separatism. Or at least they didn’t until the media started reporting it. For years they have wanted a federal arrangement with the Ukrainian government, much like Quebec with Canada.  Putin has asked for meetings to resolve the issue. The US says, “no meetings until you do what we are asking.” Putin doesn’t seem to be a particularly nice guy but at least he has called for the separatists to halt their activities and for the government to move its army out of the contested areas; the US insists that the government has the right to put down dissent by military means.

I hear drum beats and see false flags. Remember the lead-ups to Afghanistan – “gotta get Bin Laden”, Iraq – weapons of mass destruction, Iraq – babies being thrown out of incubators?

A million people have been displaced because one country decided to meddle in the politics of another. This time the two international players are facing off with aging nuclear weapons fleets and aging computer systems. Will not calmer heads prevail? 

Hard-on for War?

 A number of years ago, my sisters and I were sailing in the Virgin Islands – bare boat style. I swam in to the shore to do my exercises, carefully cradling my towel over my head. I picked a shaded portion of the beach overhung with branches and unobtrusive to most passers-by.

Sometime during the forty minutes, I heard a clearing of the throat and then humming. Following the sound, I saw a big pink belly on a large balding white man. He was looking out to sea, one fat little hand shading his eyes, the other resting in a fat fold over his thigh. He looked extraordinarily pleased with himself.

He was nude and deep among his fat folds, it was obvious that he had a hard-on.

Men can do this. They can have hard-ons. They have a part of their body that enlarges several times greater than at rest.

Women cannot do this – sure our nipples get hard and pointy and we can get warm in the crotch, wet even – but visible engorgement is limited to nursing mothers.

As we puzzle over the existence of war – the purchase of bigger and bigger killing machines – often shaped like penises, should we be considering the “hard-on” and how it affects our male partners?

War is not integral to the human race. We are soft, easy prey for carnivores. We developed in family groups and tribes working cooperatively for survival. We have enormous empathy – studies show that even babies empathize! Our needs are met when we cared for, nurtured for the first years and then allowed to explore the world safely and independently.

We have to be taught to kill other people (aside from the few psychopaths or sociopaths to whom it comes natural); the military spends millions of dollars creating and using desensitization techniques. Governments in turn spend great sums of money churning out their rational for weapons and armies and promotion of the necessity of wars. The poor kids – never the wealthy - get to go and kill or be killed on someone else’s land. Generals often retire in their fifties, could it be that if they stay any longer they gain perspective and lose blood lust?

Meanwhile the rich get richer.

Does it all come down to whether or not you can get a hard-on and what you turn to if you can’t?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL_3Qg-SADY